Why are foreign VAERS reports not being scrutinized by journalists?

For people who have been analyzing VAERS for a while, the silence seems deafening

Summary:

• A recent article about active surveillance of Myocarditis and Pericarditis reports from Australia mentions that their health regulator was unaware of these side effects until May 2021, and downplayed the risks even after they became aware

• From reading the pharmacovigilance documents submitted to the FDA¹, it looks like this happened because Pfizer was able to downplay the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis during that time period

• This can be explained by a loophole in VAERS whereby already-filed reports were delayed by months before getting published, which allowed Pfizer to ignore them in their safety calculations

• Given that foreign VAERS reports are also an important part of the vaccine pharmacovigilance process, why aren’t journalists scrutinizing them enough?

This is the 4th and final part of a series where I cross-verify Pfizer’s pharmaco-vigilance plan (PVP) report² using VAERS data.

In my previous three articles, I explained how Pfizer was able to under-count vaccine injuries because there was a big delay in publishing already-filed foreign VAERS reports. This proved that the foreign VAERS dataset is a very important part of figuring out what actually happened during the mRNA vaccine approval process.

Myocarditis and Pericarditis reports from Australia

Recently

Rebekah Barnett

wrote an article about the importance of active surveillance by using the example of myocarditis and pericarditis reports from Australia.

The importance of active surveillance, and other insights from the Hermit Kingdom's 2022 vaccine safety data

Here is a paragraph from that article:

Up until mid-to-late 2022, young Australians and their doctors may have been unaware of the true risk:benefit profile of Covid vaccines, thereby precluding the possibility of informed consent. It caused a minor scandal when it was reported, in late 2022, that Australia’s vaccine advisory body, ATAGI, did not know about the cardiac risks to young people until five months after it approved the Covid vaccines for use in this cohort.

Here is what the cited article says:

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has revealed it did not know about the heightened risk of a heart condition called myocarditis from Covid vaccines until five months after they were approved for the public.

An updated document published by the health authority in late September has attracted serious attention this month — as it showed the side-effect was unknown to the group until May 2021.

The vaccine was provisionally approved for use on 25 January, 2021 – almost five months prior.

The revelation raises questions over Australia’s vaccine mandates considering the risks associated with both Moderna and Pfizer jabs – which were highlighted by the health body.

“A small increased risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis has been observed in people following vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) compared with unvaccinated people,” the fact sheet read.

The dossier points out the risk of heart issues in young males is higher with Moderna than with Pfizer.

Source

Note that the article says that vaccine was only provisionally approved in Jan 2021, and the side effects of myocarditis and pericarditis were unknown until May 2021.

You might remember that in my second article I put together a timeline of what had probably happened:

• by 9th Jan 2021, Doctor Dror Mevorach from Israel identified a potential link between myocarditis and the Pfizer vaccine

• Pfizer was silent for four months and refused to acknowledge the side effect

• the Doctor demanded all the Israel data from Pfizer and then analyzed it around May and was able to find a statistical correlation with the vaccine

• Pfizer had to acknowledge these symptoms and started reporting them

• but the publish date of a lot of these reports were delayed long enough for Pfizer to drastically under-count foreign VAERS reports when it submitted its PVP report

I have no insight into what went on behind the scenes³, so in my opinion:

• the main reason these side effects were “unknown” was because Pfizer was refusing to acknowledge these side effects until they were forced to

• even after the side effects were “known”, they were downplayed because there is a loophole in VAERS which allowed Pfizer to not count all the myocarditis and pericarditis reports in foreign VAERS, since they had not yet been published

• this would be getting a lot more news coverage⁴ if journalists were more knowledgeable about foreign VAERS reports

Doesn’t the throttling also happen in US reports?

To address a recent comment from

WelcomeTheEagle88

I coined the term “throttling” or purposeful delay of publication. It’s been obvious for a long time VAERS allows typos, missing data fields to pass through into publication without any desire to ethically correct where applicable. I believe now that VAERS actively scrubs critical data points like age, state locations. They don’t even publish all legitimate reports received. The throttled death reports with UNK STATE ratios can’t be a coincidence. In FR reports not under Eudravigilance and not scrubbed of split type you can see the with a little imagination that manufacturer is also throttling cross walking reports into VAERS, domestic included

Link

But do notice the wording in the section about myocarditis and pericarditis in the PVP report (emphasis mine):

The query returned 1,023 reports (1012 U.S. reports), including 809 serious reports (seven were death reports concerning six unique individuals), of which 652 reports were in individuals under 30 years of age. The reports concerned 775 (75.8%) males and 238 (23.3%) females; 10 reports concerned individuals of unknown sex. The median age was 21 years (range=12-86 years). The median onset post-vaccination as calculated by VAERS dates was 3 days (range=0-151 days). The six unique death reports (3 U.S. and 3 foreign reports) concerned three males and three females; the median age at death was 66 years (range=19-81 years) and the median onset post-vaccination was 4 days (range=1-22 days). Four deaths occurred following the second dose, one following the first dose, and for one the dose number was not reported. Most death reports contained limited information or described concurrent medical conditions and/or risk factors that might have contributed to the death. A summary of each death report is listed below:

Page 13 of the PVP report

I think this terminology was intended to make VAERS look less reliable, and in fact that is somewhat true if you only looked at US VAERS reports.

But foreign reports, most of which are filed by healthcare professionals, are a lot more detailed and are sometimes unbiased enough to attribute deaths directly to the vaccine.

In other words, while it is clear that throttling happens with both US and foreign VAERS reports, in my view foreign reports tend to have more detailed writeups and are more unbiased, and are thus likely to provide a lot more insight.

To summarize: my argument here isn’t that folks should analyze US VAERS reports less, but rather they should analyze foreign VAERS reports a lot more.

Why aren’t journalists reporting on the purge of EU VAERS writeups?

In November 2022, the CDC decided to stop publishing the writeups (as well as some other fields) for EU VAERS reports.

The foreign data set was gutted this week in VAERS and the cancer signal was halved, the myocarditis dose 3 response signal was lost and 994 spontaneous abortions/still births were dropped

Fellow VAERS analysts think the CDC did it because it did not like all the scrutiny, but the CDC claims they did it for the sake of “privacy”.

Link to tweet

But the text writeups allow us to infer a lot of things, such as:

• how many VAERS reports are fake or crazy?

  • [answer: a very small fraction, actually]

• did clearly healthy people die after taking the vaccine?

  • [answer: yes]

• did any country attribute deaths directly to the vaccine?

  • [answer: Japan]

• what percentage of VAERS reports are filed by healthcare professionals?

  • [answer: over 65% for foreign VAERS, less than 10% for US VAERS]

Not publishing the writeups for VAERS reports make them a lot less useful (and in fact, if the writeup is blank, it looks like the report is incomplete or fake)

Why aren’t journalists asking more questions about foreign VAERS reports?

As a starting point, this article lists some questions they could ask:

1. These documents became available to the public only in Nov 2023, as a response to a FOIA request

2. This report was first submitted to the FDA in May 2021, and then revised with information about myocarditis and pericarditis (along with a few other symptoms) in July 2021

3. That is, I am supposing that there wasn’t any purposeful suppression of information by the Australian health regulators until that point

4. At least on other Substack publications, if not on mainstream media